Hey ROC, Give Me Your Comments On This Moon Shot

midnite jam - not sure what you were exactly trying to prove... you took a daytime shot and tried to pass it off as a moonlit shot... ROC did not take a moonlit shot and try to pass it off as a daytime shot... not an exact issue.

my problem with ROCs photo was its presentation - he said it was a moon lit shot when it was actually lit by a slow shutter speed and other camera settings. there's a difference.

in any case, like i said... your final image was a gorgeous shot... very pleasing. as far as post processing goes, i personally think the final product should speak for itself - doctored or not, it doesn't matter to me

Reign wrote in post #6600383
Gorgeous shot. I might try to clone or heal out that center wisp of cloud in the middle of the sky and its corresponding reflection... My eyes keep bouncing between the moon and that.

Reign, I'd really be pleased with any modifications anyone would care to make. As always my images are more than ok to edit.

Flo, I would love to see your version of either the PP'd or the original version. I enjoy your work--especially your edits.

MJ.lol..I wouldn;t know where to start, I can desaturate and convert and crop.copy and paste .nope.

Reign wrote in post #6603487
midnite jam - not sure what you were exactly trying to prove... you took a daytime shot and tried to pass it off as a moonlit shot... ROC did not take a moonlit shot and try to pass it off as a daytime shot... not an exact issue.

ROC could have passed off his submission as a day-light shot as easily as I might have passed off mine as a moonshot. I agree that ROC didn't try to "pass off" anything, but some people thought he was trying to pass off a daylight shot as being a moon-lit shot. One of the points which I picked up on while comparing ROC's thread with mine was that neither were what they seemed to a few. But ROC's explaination that his image was shot using only moonlight aroused suspicion from some.

The main idea which I think ROC was trying to impart was his amazing control of exposure. BTW, I was totally impressed.

Anyone can set his camera on a tripod and set the exposure to 'Automatic' and 3 minutes later have captured a moon shot. Not everyone has enough grasp of manual exposure to capture as much detail in a moon-lit shot as did ROC. I make a difference between a "Moonshot" and a "Moon-lit" shot. For the sake of my position, I maintain that my image is a "Moonshot" ( a shot of the moon) and I maintain that ROC's shot is a "Moon-Lit" shot (a shot whose only light was from the moon). There aint even a moon in it.

In the past, I've participated in forums that fostered many photographers who were preditory purests. And everyone who submitted an image for help and/or comments were fair game to be preyed upon for being unbelievably good or better than themselves. Preditors whose only purpose was to prove the insignificance of submissions that were not absolutely the same as they came out of the camera. Reign, as post processing goes, you and I are on the same page as well as many others on this best-of-the-best forum.

I suspect this forum is relatively young and came into existance after the digital age and has members who are more savvy and better equipped than the old timers who have only recently made the jump from film. Those old film guys seem to be purest that detest any sort of computer manipulation.

Canon Digital Forum is the forum that suits me best and I've tasted more than just a few.

My first impression. Heavily post-processed. Super-imposed moon? Awesome picture anyhow!

Then I went through the comments one by one, was wondering why nobody (or nearly nobody) thought the same way as I did. Thought I went severly wrong in my decision... Then I reached your second post(/thread?), MJ... and I must say.... I never thought it was a daytime shot ... beautiful work on the post-processing. I believe in an image with a good end result, no matter what it went through; but I do try to keep my post processing to a minimum because many do not accept it as 'original' otherwise. Pity! Someday hopefully that belief that the majority holds on to so strongly, will weaken and people would accept this skill. Anyways, each to his own.

Lovely edit I wouldn't change a thing from the final.

midnite: I think we're on the same page as to ROC's photo being moonlit as opposed to moon shot. Sort of. Although the light he used to light his photograph was, (for the sake of argument*) entirely from the moon, I wouldn't consider his photo a moonlit shot. Instead, his use of a 25 second shutter speed makes it, in my opinion, a long exposure shot lit by light gathered by the camera. We're just arguing semantics, really. However, when someone says a photo was moonlit - I imagine something more romantically lit.

Suppose you took a photo of a couple on the beach at night. Suppose further that you told them that you were going to blow up the romantic moonlit shot for them. Then suppose you show them and it was a 25 second long exposure that made it look like day time. I think they'd argue it wasn't moonlit... you know that technically it was. My point is that the impression is more important in the art of photography than the method and technicality - this same line of thinking is why I believe that digital post processing is the modern equivalent of creative film developing.

*the long shadows below the car suggest another light source

Nice composite. Nice work. the only thing missing is the reflection of the moon. It would be higher than the reflection of the tree tops, or rather closer to the camera than the ref. o the three tops. Good job.

Reign wrote in post #6604877
method and technicality - this same line of thinking is why I believe that digital post processing is the modern equivalent of creative film developing.

After many hours in my darkroom with negatives and messy stinking chemicals and temperature controls, I totally cannot get enough of the digital darkroom. Hooray for technology!

Miss the smell, do you?

How about the dried, cracked nail beds?

Like I've stated numerous times. I'M A NEWBIE TO PHOTOGRAPHY. I DON'T KNOW JACK ****.

That said...............

I think you're pic of the moon is cool. Period. If you're looking for my analysis of it I'd refer to my statement above in CAPS. I have no opinion re: PP, HDR, CC, FBI, IRS, DPD or whatever acronym you come up with. Hell, I don't even know what they mean To me it's just a cool photo.

As mentioned by another poster, I too wonder what you're trying to prove. When I posted my thread about my golf cart night shot I was seriously asking for advice on what I did right or wrong as far as focusing, framing the cart, too much this or not enough that. It's been mentioned that some are impressed by my exposure abilities..........LOL​OLOL. While I totally appreciate the comment, I have to say I have no idea what I did. That's what's so comical about this thread and my thread. Some folks are giving my abilities way too much credit.

My lack of abilities aside, lets now talk about my character. I'm a simple man. I don't lie or deceive. When I said my photo was taken at night with my only light sources being moonlight and porch lights of houses several hundred feet away, that's the truth.

I don't even know how to Photoshop. I bought photoshop because that's what I was told to use to edit, store, organize photos. That's it

You know my thread in question? The best help I received was from a poster that suggested using 400 iso as opposed to my 1600 and making the exposure longer. He/she even gave me an explanation as to why this might be better. THAT's the type of help I was seeking. I'm here to learn as much as I can. EDIT: That poster was "photosguy" Thanks again Photosguy.

For those that maintain that I'm "passing off" something or another, or not telling the truth, what can I say. Don't know what to tell ya. Kiss my ass maybe? Like I said, I'm a simple guy. With me, what you see is what you get.

Again, cool pic. Thanks for posting it and your process of achieving it. I actually learned something about editing.

ROC

Well said ROC!

ROC wrote in post #6611795
Like I've stated numerous times. I'M A NEWBIE TO PHOTOGRAPHY. I DON'T KNOW JACK ****.

That said...............

I think you're pic of the moon is cool. Period. If you're looking for my analysis of it I'd refer to my statement above in CAPS. I have no opinion re: PP, HDR, CC, FBI, IRS, DPD or whatever acronym you come up with. Hell, I don't even know what they mean To me it's just a cool photo.

As mentioned by another poster, I too wonder what you're trying to prove. When I posted my thread about my golf cart night shot I was seriously asking for advice on what I did right or wrong as far as focusing, framing the cart, too much this or not enough that. It's been mentioned that some are impressed by my exposure abilities..........LOL​OLOL. While I totally appreciate the comment, I have to say I have no idea what I did. That's what's so comical about this thread and my thread. Some folks are giving my abilities way too much credit.

My lack of abilities aside, lets now talk about my character. I'm a simple man. I don't lie or deceive. When I said my photo was taken at night with my only light sources being moonlight and porch lights of houses several hundred feet away, that's the truth.

I don't even know how to Photoshop. I bought photoshop because that's what I was told to use to edit, store, organize photos. That's it

You know my thread in question? The best help I received was from a poster that suggested using 400 iso as opposed to my 1600 and making the exposure longer. He/she even gave me an explanation as to why this might be better. THAT's the type of help I was seeking. I'm here to learn as much as I can. EDIT: That poster was "photosguy" Thanks again Photosguy.

For those that maintain that I'm "passing off" something or another, or not telling the truth, what can I say. Don't know what to tell ya. Kiss my ass maybe? Like I said, I'm a simple guy. With me, what you see is what you get.

Again, cool pic. Thanks for posting it and your process of achieving it. I actually learned something about editing.

ROC

Well said, ROC. Very well said.

At last I now know the real reason you posted. From my interpretation of your original statement, I assumed you were bragging about your ability to capture a subject regardless of the extreme limitations (low light or no light). It didn't occur to me from what I gathered from your opening statement that you were trying to capture an actual night scene. Seems everyone else understood your request and I didn't. I still do not know what help you were asking for. Were you asking for advice on how to capture a night scene (so that the results look like a nite scene) or were you seeking advice on how to expose more accurately the car in low-light/no-light conditions?

What was I trying to prove? I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was offering positive feedback for your support and on your behalf when your request as it was stated became somewhat of a joke.

In your origial post, I felt the need to defend you from those who were poking fun at your expense.

Now, I'm wondering if I have just been slammed from your opening comments in this thread and the joke is on me. It makes no matter to me now. I realize you're a big boy and you want to play with the big boys. Good luck and welcome to the forum.

BTW, an easy and simple and accurate method to capture a night scene is to mount the camera on a tripod. Set the exposure method to "P" or "Av" . Depress the shutter button completely. Walk away and return when the exposure has been completed. Let the camera do everything for you. Also you might want to read the manual again.

Cheers,
MJ

midnitejam wrote in post #6614102
Well said, ROC. Very well said.

At last I now know the real reason you posted. From my interpretation of your original statement, I assumed you were bragging about your ability to capture a subject regardless of the extreme limitations (low light or no light). It didn't occur to me from what I gathered from your opening statement that you were trying to capture an actual night scene. Seems everyone else understood your request and I didn't. I still do not know what help you were asking for. Were you asking for advice on how to capture a night scene (so that the results look like a nite scene) or were you seeking advice on how to expose more accurately the car in low-light/no-light conditions?

Actually I was asking for any help at all. Did I focus on the correct part of the car, exposure, iso, white balance, was the cart framed properly etc.

What was I trying to prove? I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was offering positive feedback for your support and on your behalf when your request as it was stated became somewhat of a joke.

In your origial post, I felt the need to defend you from those who were poking fun at your expense.

Now, I'm wondering if I have just been slammed from your opening comments in this thread and the joke is on me. It makes no matter to me now.

LOL, heck no. I wasn't slammin ya. If I slam someone I make it pretty obvious that I'm slamming them. I'm not really the "beat around the bush "kind of guy.

I realize you're a big boy and you want to play with the big boys. Good luck and welcome to the forum.

Thanks for the welcome. At this point in my photographic education I can't really play with the big boys, I was just hoping to learn from them. That was one of the reasons I was surprised that some thought I was lying. Why would I lie about the photo that I wanted to learn from? Doesn't make any sense.

BTW, an easy and simple and accurate method to capture a night scene is to mount the camera on a tripod. Set the exposure method to "P" or "Av" . Depress the shutter button completely. Walk away and return when the exposure has been completed. Let the camera do everything for you. Also you might want to read the manual again.

Thanks. I"ll play with the modes. That manual stays in the camera bag. I read it as much as possible. What I find is although I knew more about setting the camera up and it's functions, I still didn't know when to use what settings and such.

Cheers,
MJ

Thanks for your help MJ.

ROC

Stay with us, ROC. You're in for a wild ride! Most of the members here are happiest when they are helping. You'll see.

ROC: For exposure settings, you'll do well to pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure. It explains the relationship between the holy trinity of photography: Aperture, shutterspeed and ISO setting. With the right combination and understanding how metering works, then you'll be able to find the right exposure for any type of shot - be it night or day.

Then you'll be able to avoid being poked at by jerks like midnite jam!